Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 21
Application No. 08/611,416
experimentation. See United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857
F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 109 S.Ct. 1954 (1989); In re Stephens, 529 F.2d 1343,
1345, 188 USPQ 659, 661 (CCPA 1976).
Thus, the dispositive issue is whether the appellants'
disclosure, considering the level of ordinary skill in the art
as of the date of the appellants' application, would have
enabled a person of such skill to make and use the appellants'
invention without undue experimentation. The appellants
disclose (specification, pp. 14-15 and 20-21 and Figures 1, 5
and 6) that when each gripper element (i.e., lock 32) comes
into contact which the inclination zone 42 of each stop 41, it
is swivelled inwardly into the bearing element into the
bearing element 35 (i.e., from a holding position gripping a
tube to a release position to release a tube therefrom).
However, it is not apparent to us or the examiner as to how 10
each gripper element (i.e., lock 32) can pivot from its
phantom lined position shown in Figure 6 (i.e., the holding
10Note the specifics of the examiner's rejection of claim
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, set forth above.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007